Do you think Tiger is sick or just a cad?

[legalsea]

It must be embarrassing for any women around Tiger that weren't propositioned by him. They must feel really left out.

However, I do not believe for one second the allegations by half of these women jumping in front of the cameras. They are simply trying to get some quick money for selling their fabricated stories. However, even discounting half of the women making the claim, that appears to leave a lot of philandering.

Finally, I have not read all of the posts, but I do not think Tiger had anything to do with the death of King Henry VIII of England. But then, history is not my specialty.

 

[declansdad]

Finally, I have not read all of the posts, but I do not think Tiger had anything to do with the death of King Henry VIII of England. But then, history is not my specialty.

Would that be your legal opinion?

 

[NY Disney fan]

Can anyone explain to my pea brain why these mistresses are looking for legal representation? Why would they need a lawyer? If they are looking for a payday, wouldn't that be extortion?

 

[legalsea]

Would that be your legal opinion?

I guess I will go out on a limb and say “Yes, it is my considered legal opinion that Tiger Woods was not responsible, directly or indirectly, for the death of His Majesty King Henry VIII of England”. You may quote me, for a small non-refundable fee, cash only or I will accept a hot cup of coffee (not hot like McDonalds used to do, but hot nevertheless).

However, this does not let Tiger off the hook for other allegations that may pop up. For instance, the real estate market in his home state of Florida is tanking: do I detect Tiger paws in this catastrophe?

Also, I just saw a thread about how Disney is cutting back on discounts for 2010, including for Disney World in Florida. Why would Disney announce this at the same time that all these allegations about Tiger Woods are in the news? Coincidence? You decide.

O.J. Simpson lives in Florida, and he loves golf. Nothing else need be said.

Just when this is all breaking about Tiger Woods, Tim Tebow (the quarterback for Florida Gators) has a poor performance against Alabama. Was Tim distracted by Tiger? Was Tiger distracted by Tim? Why wasn’t Tiger at the game? Why was Tim noticeably absent from Tiger’s home that infamous night? Enquiring minds want to know.

Finally, Russell of Survivor Samoa. Gets mad at pretty little Monica. Tiger appears to like pretty little girls. Monica is suddenly voted off. Will Monica have an announcement to make today about Tiger Woods?

I hope someone can help sort all this out.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

However, I do not believe for one second the allegations by half of these women jumping in front of the cameras. They are simply trying to get some quick money for selling their fabricated stories. However, even discounting half of the women making the claim, that appears to leave a lot of philandering.

Finally, I have not read all of the posts, but I do not think Tiger had anything to do with the death of King Henry VIII of England. But then, history is not my specialty.

Maybe it is a comprehension problem since I said we are still talking about and their was no mention of Tiger being responsible for his death.

 

[eliza61]

Failing to try to stop before hitting a child, and/or failing to drive around a child, thrown from a car in a car accident is not an accident itself. You used the word "compounded" and indeed that's what is happening: People are compounding the damage done to the children through their own actions, engaging in tabloid mudslinging.

And I'm saying that people who think that should be rethinking their own actions -- thinking about the impact of their own actions before continuing to practice those actions, evaluating whether those actions serve more good than cause harm to two young children. That was the point I thought I made earlier. Reporting the facts of the case is fine; that's the press' role in our society. It does serve a public good. It is the catty, gossipy mudslinging and reckless casting of aspersions about Tiger Woods' fitness as a human and such that is irresponsible.

Which doesn't excuse the actions taken by people other than Tiger Woods.

Rationalization.

Another rationalization.

Oh Plueeeez, If I'm a writer for a gossip rag, what- I'm not supposed to write about the juicest story in sports because Tigers got kids? Gimme a freakin break!! Gossip is not made to "serve" the public. It's a billion dollar industry because of the what you call "cattiness". What now the media is supposed to be according to you "good little boys"? Have any of them lied? Tiger screwed a bunch of women not his wife.
I think not.
Who says it's irresponsible? What because you don't like it? I'm getting a bit of enjoyment out of it which I do not need justification for.

People should not gossip because there are children involved? Sorry I'm not buying the "public is at fault" and should leave him alone. I like gossip, I buy the daily star for the gossip, I buy the NY times for the news. If tiger doesn't want people talking about his life and his family, don't give them ammunititon.

Not a soul writing about Tiger is doing any thing to those kids. Tiger did that all by his little 'ole self.
What makes Tiger any different from the Govenor of SC (sorry forgot his name), Bill Clinton or any other celebrity who's screwed up? They all had kids, Tigers more popular so naturally the attention is more intense.

 

[declansdad]

I guess I will go out on a limb and say “Yes, it is my considered legal opinion that Tiger Woods was not responsible, directly or indirectly, for the death of His Majesty King Henry VIII of England”. You may quote me, for a small non-refundable fee, cash only or I will accept a hot cup of coffee (not hot like McDonalds used to do, but hot nevertheless).

However, this does not let Tiger off the hook for other allegations that may pop up. For instance, the real estate market in his home state of Florida is tanking: do I detect Tiger paws in this catastrophe?

Also, I just saw a thread about how Disney is cutting back on discounts for 2010, including for Disney World in Florida. Why would Disney announce this at the same time that all these allegations about Tiger Woods are in the news? Coincidence? You decide.

O.J. Simpson lives in Florida, and he loves golf. Nothing else need be said.

Just when this is all breaking about Tiger Woods, Tim Tebow (the quarterback for Florida Gators) has a poor performance against Alabama. Was Tim distracted by Tiger? Was Tiger distracted by Tim? Why wasn’t Tiger at the game? Why was Tim noticeably absent from Tiger’s home that infamous night? Enquiring minds want to know.

Finally, Russell of Survivor Samoa. Gets mad at pretty little Monica. Tiger appears to like pretty little girls. Monica is suddenly voted off. Will Monica have an announcement to make today about Tiger Woods?

I hope someone can help sort all this out.

I will send you some coffee and don't worry, the cup will be marked with "Caution: Contents May Be Hot"

 

[legalsea]

I will send you some coffee and don't worry, the cup will be marked with "Caution: Contents May Be Hot"

I hope it is not written on the bottom of the cup!

 

[bicker]

Oh Plueeeez, If I'm a writer for a gossip rag, what- I'm not supposed to write about the juicest story in sports because Tigers got kids? Gimme a freakin break!!

Again: Rationalization. I'm not ordering folks not to engage in that kind of rhetoric. I'm simply labeling what it is, irresponsibly causing harm to children without benefit of serving an overriding good. Let's put it in the same category as some guy in a baseball park cussing out the players when they allow the opposing team to score. What is being done is condemnable -- and that's what I'm doing: condemning.

It's a billion dollar industry

And people who know me here know I'll defend with equal vigor the right for that business to operate as best serves its shareholders. What I do find remarkable is how many folks, perhaps some posting in this thread, are so quick to condemn other businesses doing what is best for their shareholders (Disney comes to mind, or consider Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, US Airways, American Airlines, United Airlines, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citibank, Sears, Wal-mart, Children's Place, etc.), but instead are effectively cheering on the gossipy mudslinging in this case.

As ask yourself: What's the difference?

 

[eliza61]

Again: Rationalization. I'm not ordering folks not to engage in that kind of rhetoric. I'm simply labeling what it is, irresponsibly causing harm to children without benefit of serving an overriding good. Let's put it in the same category as some guy in a baseball park cussing out the players when they allow the opposing team to score. What is being done is condemnable -- and that's what I'm doing: condemning.

And people who know me here know I'll defend with equal vigor the right for that business to operate as best serves its shareholders. What I do find remarkable is how many folks, perhaps some posting in this thread, are so quick to condemn other businesses doing what is best for their shareholders (Disney comes to mind, or consider Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, US Airways, American Airlines, United Airlines, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citibank, Sears, Wal-mart, Children's Place, etc.), but instead are effectively cheering on the gossipy mudslinging in this case.

As ask yourself: What's the difference?

But your rationalizing right along with the best of us. who say it's condemnable? how do you get to set the bar? I don't think it's condemnable at all. Who is determing that his children are suffering from the gossip rags? You?
Simply put, you don't like it and that's perfectly cool.

I've never condemned any business for doing whats best for its share holders either I will say it sucks but as long as it's legal they have that right. simply because I know I always have a choice. I don't like how the credit card companies are conducting their business lately, so I've closed my accounts and transfered my business to my credit union. I also try to inform others on alternatives.

I don't like the way Disney is cutting back, watering down and other wise give less value, so you know what I'm heading to France next summer.
Each individual gets to cheer/boo based on what they decide is the barometer.
You have declared for some reason that all the mudsling is harming Tigers kids and should stop. You've have rationalized like every one else. Because you declared it's harmful to the kids (without proof I might add) the gossip industry should stop. Sorry I don't agree and see no reason why it should.

 

[Skywalker]

The only person causing grief for his family is Tiger. No different than any other person in any little town who gets caught having an affair. It may be on a smaller scale, but still even then word gets out, everyone gossips and everyone knows about it, the kids are embarassed and heartbroken. There is no special treatment for Tiger, the gossip and reporting is just on a larger scale because he lived life on a larger scale (by his own choice, unless someone has been holding a gun to his head all these years).

Also, I cannot blame parents who "let" their children look up to Tiger. He seemed to be one of the good ones and a good example of how to achieve success personally and professionally.

It seems so hard for children to have anyone to look up to anymore. (Yeah yeah look to people in the family and community blah blah, but the reality is kids do become fascinated with sports figures, possibly actors whatever, no matter what a parent may say). In my house hockey is huge, and so the main hero is Wayne Gretzky, a man who to the best of my knowledge is not only rich and the best hockey player ever, but a kind and truly decent man as well.

It's not as though Tiger is being held up to some impossible standard, it is just common morals for goodness sake.

 

[bicker]

But your rationalizing right along with the best of us.

Who's irresponsible actions am I trying to defend by claiming that they shouldn't be responsible for those irresponsible actions because of the actions of someone else?

who say it's condemnable?

Doing something that will likely harm children, without serving an overriding good, is condemnable. You're welcome to disagree with it, but the only way you can negate it is to assert that your personal beliefs and values trump that of everyone else's.

how do you get to set the bar?

How do you? How do all the folks criticizing all those companies I listed above get to?

Simply put, you don't like it and that's perfectly cool.

Do a search and you'll see that I've said something like that in over 500 threads on the DIS over the years, and hundreds of threads on other discussion boards all over the Internet. Every time the posters I refer that remark to reject it out of hand. They claim that their personal beliefs and values are "common sense" or prevail for some other reason. They never acknowledge that their decision to condemn is a personal opinion no more valid than the "other side's" opposing opinion.

By contrast, I do.​

I don't like the gossipy mudslinging and believe that it is so grievous an offense that it is condemnable. You're welcome to defend gossipy mudslinging. And as you said, "that's perfectly cool." What would be really nice is if more folks were able to acknowledge what I just acknowledged.

I've never condemned any business for doing whats best for its share holders either.

Excellent. Perhaps you might be inclined, next time a thread is running where a large mob is condemning a business for operating legally and most effectively doing what is best for its shareholders, you can join in and express to them what you've expressed to me, here in this thread? That would be great.

 

[MAKmom]

I am shocked by this. I was fascinated by Tiger because of his mental toughness. He won tournaments because other golfers were afraid of him (whether they want to admit it or not). And because Tiger was so in control of everything else, I can't believe that he let his personal life get so out of control.

On another front. Have you seen the reports that his wife hit him in the mouth with a cell phone and chipped 4 teeth and that is why is not making any appearances.

I would think he could have a dentist fix his teeth in his home immediately. I find this story hard to believe.

I agree with everything you say except the bolded part, to a degree. I think their job is to play the game; our job is to raise our children and teach them who to look up to and for what reason.

I think we all had reasons to think Tiger was a great role model for our young golfers. My 12 year old nephew idolizes him, he is also an avid golfer. He only knows he was in an accident. My brothers kids are not allowed to watch TV. It will be a matter of time before other kids are telling him I would assume.
_____________________________________________________________


I think this has hit us harder than other scandals since we watched him grow up & fell in love with him. He was every mothers dream.

Most athletes are a flash in the pan.

 

[legalsea]

Remember the woman on the show, The Simpsons, who, whenever the town members would meet to discuss some prevailing issue, would scream out:

“But what about the children?”

The clear implication was that she felt she was morally superior to the townspeople whom, she felt, were only meeting and talking in order to fulfill some selfish curiosity while she, in her mind, was present and taking part only in order to safeguard the innocent. Of course, she was just as curious as everyone else.

My opinion: it is up to the Wood family to shield their children from the news media and related media, including discussion boards, and to also explain to them the facts of life of being very famous, including being subject to media reporting and individual gossip. It is not the media/public’s responsibility to not report and/or discuss events. It is human nature to discuss or gossip, and it is the business of the news media to report news.

‘Rationalization’ is an individual process. The person trying to quit smoking will decide to smoke a cigarette, reasoning within himself that “I have had a tough day and deserve one”. It is a rationalization.

According to the dictionary, ‘rationalization’ means ‘to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable; to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives; to create an excuse or more attractive explanation.’

Note that rationalization is the creation of the individual person. True, a person may point at another person and say “You are trying to rationalize your actions”, but it is simply a guess; only the person themselves may know for sure (and, as the dictionary says, it may be unconscious). In other words, accusing each other in multiple posts they everyone else is rationalizing something is not a rational discussion. It is akin to shadow boxing.

Here is an instance of a self-rationalization: to go into a thread that one finds objectionable and to obliquely criticize those participating in said thread by arguing that said participants are causing harm to children whom will, in all reasonably probability, never see the discussion. The reason the person went into the thread is to satisfy his or her own prurient interests. Feeling guilty, said person will rationalize his or her appearance on the thread by thinking “I am only on this thread to set others straight and to point out to these misguided people that they are harming the children of a professional golfer”. It is a pure rationalization worthy of that woman on the Simpsons. Of course, I am myself ‘shadow boxing’ since I am, by implication at least, accusing others of engaging in rationalization behavior. Yet is seems sound enough.

If one has an bone to pick with the news media, it is my understanding that virtually all members of said news media, including the New York Times, the National Enquirer, etc, have either mailing addresses or email addresses. One could do no better than to mail or email your concerns to those you feel are guilty of improper reporting. As for objecting to people discussing Tiger Woods or the general imperfections of the Famous and Notorious: you must simply learn to accept the unacceptable. Who was it that walked to the ocean’s edge and commanded the waves to stop? Anyway, akin to that example.

 

[MAKmom]

Remember the woman on the show, The Simpsons, who, whenever the town members would meet to discuss some prevailing issue, would scream out:

“But what about the children?”

The clear implication was that she felt she was morally superior to the townspeople whom, she felt, were only meeting and talking in order to fulfill some selfish curiosity while she, in her mind, was present and taking part only in order to safeguard the innocent. Of course, she was just as curious as everyone else.

My opinion: it is up to the Wood family to shield their children from the news media and related media, including discussion boards, and to also explain to them the facts of life of being very famous, including being subject to media reporting and individual gossip. It is not the media/public’s responsibility to not report and/or discuss events. It is human nature to discuss or gossip, and it is the business of the news media to report news.

‘Rationalization’ is an individual process. The person trying to quit smoking will decide to smoke a cigarette, reasoning within himself that “I have had a tough day and deserve one”. It is a rationalization.

According to the dictionary, ‘rationalization’ means ‘to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable; to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives; to create an excuse or more attractive explanation.’

Note that rationalization is the creation of the individual person. True, a person may point at another person and say “You are trying to rationalize your actions”, but it is simply a guess; only the person themselves may know for sure (and, as the dictionary says, it may be unconscious). In other words, accusing each other in multiple posts they everyone else is rationalizing something is not a rational discussion. It is akin to shadow boxing.

Here is an instance of a self-rationalization: to go into a thread that one finds objectionable and to obliquely criticize those participating in said thread by arguing that said participants are causing harm to children whom will, in all reasonably probability, never see the discussion. The reason the person went into the thread is to satisfy his or her own prurient interests. Feeling guilty, said person will rationalize his or her appearance on the thread by thinking “I am only on this thread to set others straight and to point out to these misguided people that they are harming the children of a professional golfer”. It is a pure rationalization worthy of that woman on the Simpsons. Of course, I am myself ‘shadow boxing’ since I am, by implication at least, accusing others of engaging in rationalization behavior. Yet is seems sound enough.

If one has an bone to pick with the news media, it is my understanding that virtually all members of said news media, including the New York Times, the National Enquirer, etc, have either mailing addresses or email addresses. One could do no better than to mail or email your concerns to those you feel are guilty of improper reporting. As for objecting to people discussing Tiger Woods or the general imperfections of the Famous and Notorious: you must simply learn to accept the unacceptable. Who was it that walked to the ocean’s edge and commanded the waves to stop? Anyway, akin to that example.

That was a long speech my eyes stated to glaze over.

You forgot to add IMO.

 

[legalsea]

That was a long speech my eyes stated to glaze over.

You forgot to add IMO.

I do not know what IMO means. However, if it has something to do with 'opinion', I did clearly state, at the beginning of the fouth paragraph, "My opinion". No doubt your eyes were resembling glazed and tasty donuts by that time.

 

[declansdad]

great post legalsea.

 

[dejr_8]

Here is an instance of a self-rationalization: to go into a thread that one finds objectionable and to obliquely criticize those participating in said thread by arguing that said participants are causing harm to children whom will, in all reasonably probability, never see the discussion. The reason the person went into the thread is to satisfy his or her own prurient interests. Feeling guilty, said person will rationalize his or her appearance on the thread by thinking “I am only on this thread to set others straight and to point out to these misguided people that they are harming the children...

Isn't this by definition most of the threads on the DIS?

Great post!

 

[bicker]

Isn't this by definition most of the threads on the DIS?

Nah, many threads are simply, "I don't like things, so they must be wrong!" Only rarely is it a matter of children being harmed or some other more broadly important consideration.

 

[Disney Doll]

that is where a Real Parent comes in and lets them know starting young that a Golfer is NOT a role model. You have to nip that in the bud when they are young. People who play a sport are NOT role models,they are athletes and nothing more.

Oh, if only every child had a Real Parent.....